TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup, 305 Neb. 493

TransCanada initiated multiple condemnation actions; condemnees in Antelope County moved for attorney fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-726 after TransCanada later voluntarily dismissed the condemnations.
County Court awarded fees based on affidavits submitted by condemnees; TransCanada objected to affidavits as hearsay.
On appeal, the Antelope County District Court found the affidavits inadmissible and reversed, remanding for a "rehearing on the merits." Those remand orders were not appealed by TransCanada and thus became final in these cases.
The County Court, after a continuance pending related appeals (Nicholas Family), declined to hold a new evidentiary hearing, reasoning the evidence was identical to that in Nicholas Family and insufficient to support fees.
The condemnees appealed the County Court’s post-remand rulings but failed to file statements of errors; the District Court reviewed for plain error, concluded the County Court plainly erred by not holding a rehearing, and remanded with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
TransCanada appealed the District Court’s plain-error rulings; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the District Court and ordered the County Court to hold an evidentiary hearing and decide fees based on the evidence presented.

Issue	TransCanada's Argument	Condemnees' Argument	Held
Whether the County Court plainly erred by entering judgment on remand without an evidentiary hearing	No plain error; District Court’s remand was general or, if specific, the Bohmont exception allows entry of judgment when undisputed facts permit only one outcome	Yes plain error; County Court was bound to follow the District Court’s specific mandate to rehear the motions	Court held plain error; County Court violated the specific remand and must hold an evidentiary hearing
Whether the District Court’s remand was a general remand or a specific mandate for rehearing	The remand was effectively general; therefore the County Court could apply the Bohmont exception or limit proceedings	The remand was specific for a rehearing on the merits and thus mandatory and binding	Court held the remand was a specific mandate for a rehearing, not a general remand
Whether the County Court could limit rehearing evidence to the prior affidavits	The County Court could limit the rehearing to the existing record (relying on Jeffres/deNourie principles) and, because affidavits were similar, conclude only one judgment was possible	The County Court could not narrow the scope below what the remand ordered; it must permit relevant evidence at the evidentiary hearing	Court held County Court erred in narrowing the scope; it must allow a full evidentiary hearing and consider relevant evidence

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Nicholas Family, 299 Neb. 276 (2018) (affidavits by counsel may be admissible but were insufficient on these facts to support attorney-fee awards)
Jeffres v. Countryside Homes, 220 Neb. 26 (1985) (on remand for damages, trial court may decide on existing record or take new evidence)
deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912 (2017) (general remand returns parties to pre-trial posture; trial court may consider new pretrial motions and need not automatically hold a new trial)
State v. Henk, 299 Neb. 586 (2018) (lower courts must comply with the specific scope of a remand and may not adjudicate claims outside it)
Bohmont v. Moore, 141 Neb. 91 (1942) (exception to general-remand rule: where facts are undisputed and only one judgment is possible, trial court may enter judgment without new trial)
Jurgensen v. Ainscow, 160 Neb. 208 (1955) (lower court must obey appellate mandate; appellate directions are binding)